Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 02-23-2018, 10:19 PM
BAgate BAgate is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 25
Default My thoughts

First, a quick lesson on the second amendment. It was actually originally intended as a right possessed by the states, not individuals, to protect them from a tyrannical central government. It wasn't until after the civil war that people began to distrust state governments and so shift their beliefs about the second amendment to a personal right. And heck, the ban on machine guns was even championed by the head of the NRA. So what we consider 'rights' is not set in stone.

Second, law abiding gun owners are not who we have to fear. I saw a stat once where people who have concealed carry permits commit violent crimes at a lower rate than cops do. The problem that needs to be addressed is non-law abiding and mentally disturbed people. And we don't really need new laws to combat this. What we need is a) tougher enforcement of existing laws and b) for Trump and the republicans to stop weakening the laws we already have. I mean, the first significant law this congress passed was to make it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns. Thankfully, they are at least talking about changing that stance.

Third, most of the 'solutions' I hear people talking about won't do jack. Raising the purchase age? Really? Most mass shootings are committed by people over 21, and most school shootings are committed by people using other peoples' (usually their parents') guns. Banning assault rifles? There are plenty of hunting rifles with equivalent capabilities. Arming teachers? A recipe for disaster if I ever heard one. Besides making a teacher's job harder this would just introduce handguns into schools, where an angry student (or teacher) could get their hands on it.

Fourth, priority number one must be repealing the amendment which prohibits the federal government from researching gun violence. It all starts there.

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #27  
Old 02-23-2018, 10:52 PM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

I donít believe wearing shoes through airport security is part of the bill of rights?
__________________
  #28  
Old 02-23-2018, 11:49 PM
Domer Dude Domer Dude is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,602
Default

I'm not gonna talk about the above but related to this is the officer who did not enter alone to go after the shooter.

After Columbine, the lesson learned was that officers should enter when 2 officers are on site and not wait for SWAT, etc. A single officer has no chance against multiple subjects.

This guy is getting screwed over.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-deput...433&yptr=yahoo
  #29  
Old 02-24-2018, 12:30 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer Dude View Post
I'm not gonna talk about the above but related to this is the officer who did not enter alone to go after the shooter.

After Columbine, the lesson learned was that officers should enter when 2 officers are on site and not wait for SWAT, etc. A single officer has no chance against multiple subjects.

This guy is getting screwed over.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-deput...433&yptr=yahoo
Thats what i mean when i say people romanticize this good guys with guns vs the bad guys with guns. It works good in the movies but in real life, the good guy hears automatic rounds firing and just decides they don't pay me enough for this.

Leave it to the LEO.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #30  
Old 02-24-2018, 12:41 AM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
Thats what i mean when i say people romanticize this good guys with guns vs the bad guys with guns. It works good in the movies but in real life, the good guy hears automatic rounds firing and just decides they don't pay me enough for this.

Leave it to the LEO.
Didn’t realize the kid had an automatic weapon.

Edited to add that the guy that was armed and didn’t confront the suspect was a LEO
__________________
  #31  
Old 02-24-2018, 03:38 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
I don’t believe wearing shoes through airport security is part of the bill of rights?
They had airports in the 1700s? I am sure while they spent 20 minutes loading their muskets they were forecasting the future. Searching in cars and airports without warrant, they decided that was fine just not ones house.
  #32  
Old 02-24-2018, 03:55 AM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
They had airports in the 1700s? I am sure while they spent 20 minutes loading their muskets they were forecasting the future. Searching in cars and airports without warrant, they decided that was fine just not ones house.
Who is searching cars without a warrant?
__________________
  #33  
Old 02-24-2018, 04:49 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Who is searching cars without a warrant?
Every police officer with ďprobable causeĒ.
  #34  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:12 AM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Every police officer with ďprobable causeĒ.
So, you make an argument and it gets shot down and you come back with some off the wall BS? Yeah, this is pointless.

2A was put in place not only for militias and the crap you mentioned, but to also serve as a way for the people to ensure the govt doesnít turn into a tyrannical **** show...but you have enough faith in our elected officials not to let that happen that youíre willing to give up that right for everyone because itís your opinion that guns are evil, yet in the same breath you complain about how they abuse the power they have and expand it to meet their desires. Makes sense.
__________________
  #35  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:28 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
So, you make an argument and it gets shot down and you come back with some off the wall BS? Yeah, this is pointless.

2A was put in place not only for militias and the crap you mentioned, but to also serve as a way for the people to ensure the govt doesn’t turn into a tyrannical **** show...but you have enough faith in our elected officials not to let that happen that you’re willing to give up that right for everyone because it’s your opinion that guns are evil, yet in the same breath you complain about how they abuse the power they have and expand it to meet their desires. Makes sense.
You never shut down my argument. Your just using classic black and white talking points. I was just pointing out the founding fathers didn’t forecast airport searches and rights being taken away in that regard the same as they did not forecast at 15s. But, I shut down your argument, no response on police searching your car without a warrant? I have a right against search and seizures, however the fathers never predicted people would leave their homes in planes and auto. You are all about technicalities when it comes to pointing out that a AR-15 is a semi auto. It still can fire 400 rounds per minute and 600 with bump stock. And I can not point out the evolution or technology and society in general. Please, the right and their hypocrisy.I don’t think guns used for purpose are evil. I don’t see a proble with a bolt action for hunting. You are assuming.
  #36  
Old 02-24-2018, 06:40 AM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

First of all, Iím an independent voter. Itís people like you that stirs the frustration with the left. Itís your way or no way at all. You have the same type of people on the right as well, but theyíre not mistakingly calling me a republican and hypocrite just because of my views on 2A. Secondly, the ability for police to search based on probable cause is not against the law or constitution. Does that get abused? Sure, there are LEOs that really shouldnít be employed or even jailed for their behavior. Does that mean we should strike probable cause searches from being legal? Nope.

As for the airport searches, I believe that you are not forced to travel by air, so by purchasing a ticket you are agreeing to the security policies of the airlines, airports, and govt agencies that work in those locations. Just like by driving you agree to abide by the laws/policies set by the govt such as speed limits and emissions testing. Again, youíre not being forced to drive, that is a choice you are making.

And you believe the forefathers did not have the mental capacity to understand that there could be technological advances when the constitution was written? Thatís probably one of the dumbest statements I have read in quite a while. I imagine an inventor that signed the constitution, Franklin, just couldnít fathom that technology changes at a rapid pace. It didnít even take 100 years after the signing of that document before guns that could fire at a more rapid pace than your standard AR (with the use of a bump stock) were around. Did civilians own them? Probably not, but that was probably due to cost and priorities.

No, I donít need an AR. I probably do not need a gun at all, but it is my right to have one or more if I choose to do so.

Not to tell you how to make your point, but a better topic to state that your 4th amendment rights were being abused would be to mention the patriot act. That is truly against 4A and should be struck down.
__________________
  #37  
Old 02-24-2018, 06:53 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
First of all, Iím an independent voter. Itís people like you that stirs the frustration with the left. Itís your way or no way at all. You have the same type of people on the right as well, but theyíre not mistakingly calling me a republican and hypocrite just because of my views on 2A. Secondly, the ability for police to search based on probable cause is not against the law or constitution. Does that get abused? Sure, there are LEOs that really shouldnít be employed or even jailed for their behavior. Does that mean we should strike probable cause searches from being legal? Nope.

As for the airport searches, I believe that you are not forced to travel by air, so by purchasing a ticket you are agreeing to the security policies of the airlines, airports, and govt agencies that work in those locations. Just like by driving you agree to abide by the laws/policies set by the govt such as speed limits and emissions testing. Again, youíre not being forced to drive, that is a choice you are making.

And you believe the forefathers did not have the mental capacity to understand that there could be technological advances when the constitution was written? Thatís probably one of the dumbest statements I have read in quite a while. I imagine an inventor that signed the constitution, Franklin, just couldnít fathom that technology changes at a rapid pace. It didnít even take 100 years after the signing of that document before guns that could fire at a more rapid pace than your standard AR (with the use of a bump stock) were around. Did civilians own them? Probably not, but that was probably due to cost and priorities.

No, I donít need an AR. I probably do not need a gun at all, but it is my right to have one or more if I choose to do so.

Not to tell you how to make your point, but a better topic to state that your 4th amendment rights were being abused would be to mention the patriot act. That is truly against 4A and should be struck down.
First off, I never said it was wrong to take my shoes off or someoneís car being searched. I was making a point that people that cause harm to others ruin rights for others that do not. We have to take our shoes off because of one person. Second, the right wing is the one that continues to take away rights and invade privacy as you pointed out the patriot act. Since Trump has been elected our online searches are tracked and now big corps can cap our bandwidth. Not to mention their opposition to marijuana and gay marriage. But guns! No way! Third, no I donít think franklin envisioned airplanes or guns that turned out 400 Edís per minute, he was more interested in chairs that turned around.
  #38  
Old 02-24-2018, 07:15 AM
stdntDrvr stdntDrvr is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,311
Default

Your rights are not being taken away by taking your shoes off at an airport. You agree to the search process by purchasing a ticket.

You fail to mention that Obama renewed the patriot act in 2015.

The republicans are clearly making a mistake with net neutrality...

The opposition to both legal marijuana and gay marriage is clearly wrong. Hell, even having weed listed as a Schedule 1 drug, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, is insane.

Let’s put the Franklin example this way, you think the forefathers included an amendment about guns without thinking about future impacts? So, you believe our forefathers were extremely short sighted?
__________________
  #39  
Old 02-24-2018, 07:48 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
First of all, Iím an independent voter. Itís people like you that stirs the frustration with the left. Itís your way or no way at all. You have the same type of people on the right as well, but theyíre not mistakingly calling me a republican and hypocrite just because of my views on 2A. Secondly, the ability for police to search based on probable cause is not against the law or constitution. Does that get abused? Sure, there are LEOs that really shouldnít be employed or even jailed for their behavior. Does that mean we should strike probable cause searches from being legal? Nope.

As for the airport searches, I believe that you are not forced to travel by air, so by purchasing a ticket you are agreeing to the security policies of the airlines, airports, and govt agencies that work in those locations. Just like by driving you agree to abide by the laws/policies set by the govt such as speed limits and emissions testing. Again, youíre not being forced to drive, that is a choice you are making.

And you believe the forefathers did not have the mental capacity to understand that there could be technological advances when the constitution was written? Thatís probably one of the dumbest statements I have read in quite a while. I imagine an inventor that signed the constitution, Franklin, just couldnít fathom that technology changes at a rapid pace. It didnít even take 100 years after the signing of that document before guns that could fire at a more rapid pace than your standard AR (with the use of a bump stock) were around. Did civilians own them? Probably not, but that was probably due to cost and priorities.

No, I donít need an AR. I probably do not need a gun at all, but it is my right to have one or more if I choose to do so.

Not to tell you how to make your point, but a better topic to state that your 4th amendment rights were being abused would be to mention the patriot act. That is truly against 4A and should be struck down.
FYI there were guns already in existence at the time 2A was signed, that were able to fire multiple rounds compared to a muzzle loader. Pepper box gun and the Pickle gun were two such firearms, and were definitely known about. Dont know if you ever heard of them or not.
  #40  
Old 02-24-2018, 07:58 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
First off, I never said it was wrong to take my shoes off or someoneís car being searched. I was making a point that people that cause harm to others ruin rights for others that do not. We have to take our shoes off because of one person. Second, the right wing is the one that continues to take away rights and invade privacy as you pointed out the patriot act. Since Trump has been elected our online searches are tracked and now big corps can cap our bandwidth. Not to mention their opposition to marijuana and gay marriage. But guns! No way! Third, no I donít think franklin envisioned airplanes or guns that turned out 400 Edís per minute, he was more interested in chairs that turned around.
Most conservatives and libertarians I know, myself included, dont care about gay marriage. Why would I prevent someone being miserable like the rest of us😂. I've maintained since very early in my career MJ would be decriminalized before I retire, so far that seems to be correct, and I don't care since I don't partake of it.

Less government, less regulation, free market, stay out of the marriage business, less taxes, and generally leave me the hell alone. The more government involvement the more bureacratic, inefficient, and spendy things get, especially the further up the ladder you move from local to the Fed's. More often than not the government complicates issues and make them worse or it takes a lot longer to correct the problem.
  #41  
Old 02-24-2018, 02:03 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdntDrvr View Post
Your rights are not being taken away by taking your shoes off at an airport. You agree to the search process by purchasing a ticket.

You fail to mention that Obama renewed the patriot act in 2015.

The republicans are clearly making a mistake with net neutrality...

The opposition to both legal marijuana and gay marriage is clearly wrong. Hell, even having weed listed as a Schedule 1 drug, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, is insane.

Letís put the Franklin example this way, you think the forefathers included an amendment about guns without thinking about future impacts? So, you believe our forefathers were extremely short sighted?
I do, I think some did when the Tommy Gun and other machine guns were banned as well. I think that going through the war with Britain and everything that brought about they made a nearsighted decision. Itís not like world leaders today make all their decisions trying to figure out consequences 200 years later. Also, the founding fathers were not GODs, they were just elite people at their time. We have many innovators nowadays too. In fact, I could argue that the average person, thanks to technological advances has a vast amount of more knowledge than they did. An average person with the internet can obtain probably the equivalent to 25 years of knowledge in one day.
  #42  
Old 02-24-2018, 02:08 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Most conservatives and libertarians I know, myself included, dont care about gay marriage. Why would I prevent someone being miserable like the rest of us��. I've maintained since very early in my career MJ would be decriminalized before I retire, so far that seems to be correct, and I don't care since I don't partake of it.

Less government, less regulation, free market, stay out of the marriage business, less taxes, and generally leave me the hell alone. The more government involvement the more bureacratic, inefficient, and spendy things get, especially the further up the ladder you move from local to the Fed's. More often than not the government complicates issues and make them worse or it takes a lot longer to correct the problem.
Great, then we agree on most things other than guns. But those principles do not seem to apply to the conservatives in office today. In fact, instead of focusing on guns the GOP wants to tax and take away video games, what’s next my tv? Oh and open up government mental health institutions, that undoubtably will take away significant rights from individuals. That is their answer. And guess what, Florida already has a law that any law enforcement, physician, and others in the community can involuntarily commit someone to an IP ward for essentially no reason. This is severely abused by for profit hospitals. My point is their are laws already in Florida that could have institulized that kid easily.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 02-24-2018 at 02:13 PM.
  #43  
Old 02-24-2018, 03:02 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Most conservatives and libertarians I know, myself included, dont care about gay marriage. Why would I prevent someone being miserable like the rest of us😂. I've maintained since very early in my career MJ would be decriminalized before I retire, so far that seems to be correct, and I don't care since I don't partake of it.

Less government, less regulation, free market, stay out of the marriage business, less taxes, and generally leave me the hell alone. The more government involvement the more bureacratic, inefficient, and spendy things get, especially the further up the ladder you move from local to the Fed's. More often than not the government complicates issues and make them worse or it takes a lot longer to correct the problem.
I'm not anti government but it is bloated due to the fact that everytime someone gets into office, they create position for relatives. I've seen it at the lical level on up.

People forget when you take away the government you are handing this country over to the rich. At least now we all have an equal vote. Rich or poor, we all have a say. Don't like it? You can vote them out.

Make no mistake, the chain of command goes from government to the big corporations. No one bends you over and gives it to ya like big business.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #44  
Old 02-25-2018, 12:46 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I'm not anti government but it is bloated due to the fact that everytime someone gets into office, they create position for relatives. I've seen it at the lical level on up.

People forget when you take away the government you are handing this country over to the rich. At least now we all have an equal vote. Rich or poor, we all have a say. Don't like it? You can vote them out.

Make no mistake, the chain of command goes from government to the big corporations. No one bends you over and gives it to ya like big business.
I'm not anti-government either, just want a lot less of it meddling in all sorts of things it never was intended for. Agreed on corporatism and the government, and I much prefer free market capitalism.
  #45  
Old 02-25-2018, 03:09 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
I'm not anti-government either, just want a lot less of it meddling in all sorts of things it never was intended for. Agreed on corporatism and the government, and I much prefer free market capitalism.
What less meddling would you like? I am just curious, because it is really unclear what you would mean by free market capitalism as well. So I guess a few questions what are your definitions of these, while being against Corporatism. Finally, interesting perspective from a government employee, so I have to ask as a libertarian that you are would you rather have people police themselves or hire private contractors for protecting and servicing?
  #46  
Old 02-25-2018, 08:46 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
What less meddling would you like? I am just curious, because it is really unclear what you would mean by free market capitalism as well. So I guess a few questions what are your definitions of these, while being against Corporatism. Finally, interesting perspective from a government employee, so I have to ask as a libertarian that you are would you rather have people police themselves or hire private contractors for protecting and servicing?
The government shouldn't be telling private businesses/owners how and who they should do business with. The housing bubble is a prime instance when the government forces banks to provide loans to candidates the banks wouldn't normally take a risk on, then they turn around and bail the banks and other financial institutions out of a situation the Feds forced to begin with. As a business if you make poor decisions, as a taxpayer I shouldn't be forced to keep you afloat. On the other side of the coin if your decisions make your business boom I'm not entitled to the fruit of those risks and decisions. Let the businesses and consumers decide the market value of goods and services. Personally I like the freedom of choice and being able to shop around for what I want and negotiate for a price I am willing to pay, options are a good thing and so are consensual transactions/agreements.

Silly question, but why does my being a government employee restrict my ability to think and act independently? I'm still a citizen. I wish that people as a whole would take more responsibility and accountability for themselves and their actions. That ties a bit into my views in the other thread about man being good/evil. If people did a lot more of that then I suppose there would be a lot fewer guys like me.
  #47  
Old 02-25-2018, 01:34 PM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
And guess what, Florida already has a law that any law enforcement, physician, and others in the community can involuntarily commit someone to an IP ward for essentially no reason. This is severely abused by for profit hospitals. My point is their are laws already in Florida that could have institulized that kid easily.
The law of unintended consequences perhaps?
Otherwise known as the Baker Act, named for the Democrat state representative Maxine Baker, who had a great interest in mental health issues and sought to protect both affected individuals and the public in general.
Just putting a law in place does not mean things turn out the way the law was intended. Having a law in place is usually a good thing, but if there's a way to profit legally from something, someone will find a way.
The problem with the Baker Act, from what I've found, isn't that for-profit hospitals abuse the act, since they are on the receiving-end of patient intake, but rather that training of law enforcement officers, physicians, psychologists, public defenders, and court magistrates regarding this law has been lacking.

https://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs...ws/bainvex.pdf
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/...rActManual.pdf
http://www.mentalhealthrights.org/th...ker-act-abuse/
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0394/0394.html

So, if laws are in place already, why aren't the laws being followed?
I think that is the point of this entire debate (and of course the point of other debates as well).
Law makers make laws. That's what they do.
Do local authorities (however that may be defined) follow the laws? Do they enforce the laws?
Do people with bad intent follow the laws?
Do those afflicted with mental health issues understand or care about the laws?
Is there adequate training of all involved parties? Is there communication between all necessary law enforcement agencies? Is there enough money given to the training and communication and enforcement and facilities to make the law work the way it was meant to work?
Will banning AR-15's have any effect if the laws aren't enforced by local authorities (again, however that is defined) or followed by people with bad intent?
Seriously, I would love someone to help me understand how banning AR-15's will stop mass shootings in the future. Please, without screeming nonsense but rather with a meaningful discussion, help me understand how it will help. I understand it is a weapon commonly used. But does banning it mean that there won't be mass shootings in the future? Comparisons of the US to countries like Japan or Sweden are not really valid. No other country, at least to my knowledge, has anything like the second amendment. Almost no other country on the planet has the ethnic and religious diversity that the US has. I'm not aware of another country that guarantees freedom of speech the way the US does. With ethnic and religious diversity come different cultural experiences and norms, and all of that has to be factored into whatever solution(s) come forward.
I am truly not against banning AR-15's. Wouldn't mind it at all if they were banned. They seem pretty needless to me. Not a gun owner, not an NRA member, don't care about the NRA.
But it seems to me that putting a Band-Aid on a major bleeder doesn't work. And of course there's the "slippery slope" argument. Ban AR-15's but don't see any decrease in mass shootings? Why not ban whatever is being used then? And then what?
Screeming from the rooftops doesn't work either. Grandstanding by the different vested-interests is common but only inflammatory and not really helpful.
It will take a concerted effort by lawmakers working together to help minimize the likelihood of these mass shootings in the future.
I would hope that grandstanding could be put aside and lawmakers could at least find some common ground issues that could be addressed to start putting a dent in stopping these things from happening.

Last edited by Kelly Gruene; 02-25-2018 at 02:52 PM.
  #48  
Old 02-25-2018, 10:53 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
The government shouldn't be telling private businesses/owners how and who they should do business with. The housing bubble is a prime instance when the government forces banks to provide loans to candidates the banks wouldn't normally take a risk on, then they turn around and bail the banks and other financial institutions out of a situation the Feds forced to begin with. As a business if you make poor decisions, as a taxpayer I shouldn't be forced to keep you afloat. On the other side of the coin if your decisions make your business boom I'm not entitled to the fruit of those risks and decisions. Let the businesses and consumers decide the market value of goods and services. Personally I like the freedom of choice and being able to shop around for what I want and negotiate for a price I am willing to pay, options are a good thing and so are consensual transactions/agreements.
Every law or regulation can be traced back to death or exploitation and
Poor and working class people didn't create all of those complicated tax loopholes that keep the wealthy from going broke and protect their money. The free market sounds great on paper. but it's like monopoly, at some point only one person is gonna be left owning anything. As a small business owner, I can't purchase in volume and save like the larger corporations. I can't send sells people to other jobs to try and steal work. I just want to earn a certain amount of profit per year. Corporations want quarterly growth and they will screw folks over to get it. Last summer Best Buy charged people 40 dollars for a case of water in Texas after the hurricanes. That's what fmc looks like.

Full disclosure, I worked in Florida after the hurricanes. We were sub contracted and making over 100 bucks an hour, anything after 8 hrs was double. Saturday was all double and sunday was triple. Thanks Gub'ment. A natural disaster would ruin peoples lives with out any gov. help. They put us up in a red roof inn that was charging 700 a night. So I don't see so much as supply and demand but rather screwing people over when you get the chance.

it cost the taxpayers a bundle...way more what was required but it all can be traced back to crooked politicians.

I rambled so much I forgot what my point was. LOL.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #49  
Old 02-25-2018, 11:56 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is online now
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
The government shouldn't be telling private businesses/owners how and who they should do business with. The housing bubble is a prime instance when the government forces banks to provide loans to candidates the banks wouldn't normally take a risk on, then they turn around and bail the banks and other financial institutions out of a situation the Feds forced to begin with. As a business if you make poor decisions, as a taxpayer I shouldn't be forced to keep you afloat. On the other side of the coin if your decisions make your business boom I'm not entitled to the fruit of those risks and decisions. Let the businesses and consumers decide the market value of goods and services. Personally I like the freedom of choice and being able to shop around for what I want and negotiate for a price I am willing to pay, options are a good thing and so are consensual transactions/agreements.

Silly question, but why does my being a government employee restrict my ability to think and act independently? I'm still a citizen. I wish that people as a whole would take more responsibility and accountability for themselves and their actions. That ties a bit into my views in the other thread about man being good/evil. If people did a lot more of that then I suppose there would be a lot fewer guys like me.
The big reason for the civil rights act was the result of your first point. Second point, false the government did not cause the crisis. The fact that the lenders got to big and too greedy caused the crisis. Finally, was not saying you could not have a perspective because you are a government employee. I was just curious how far you think it should go. I know there are libertarians out there that think you should pay for your own street etc. so as a police officer was wondering if you felt that police should also be private sector.
  #50  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:43 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
Every law or regulation can be traced back to death or exploitation and
Poor and working class people didn't create all of those complicated tax loopholes that keep the wealthy from going broke and protect their money. The free market sounds great on paper. but it's like monopoly, at some point only one person is gonna be left owning anything. As a small business owner, I can't purchase in volume and save like the larger corporations. I can't send sells people to other jobs to try and steal work. I just want to earn a certain amount of profit per year. Corporations want quarterly growth and they will screw folks over to get it. Last summer Best Buy charged people 40 dollars for a case of water in Texas after the hurricanes. That's what fmc looks like.

Full disclosure, I worked in Florida after the hurricanes. We were sub contracted and making over 100 bucks an hour, anything after 8 hrs was double. Saturday was all double and sunday was triple. Thanks Gub'ment. A natural disaster would ruin peoples lives with out any gov. help. They put us up in a red roof inn that was charging 700 a night. So I don't see so much as supply and demand but rather screwing people over when you get the chance.

it cost the taxpayers a bundle...way more what was required but it all can be traced back to crooked politicians.

I rambled so much I forgot what my point was. LOL.
A lot to respond to. Not disagreeing with some of the points. I know first hand about disaster stuff as well and how highly inefficient and spendy it gets. It's great to spend other people's money and basically have zero accountability when it's done, signed theFeds.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Last Updated: September 18, 2019

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.